Share this story

Further Reading

On April 11, Robert Sumwalt, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, called Tesla CEO Elon Musk to tell him that the federal agency was taking the unusual step of removing the company from its investigation into a fatal March 2018 Tesla X crash in California.

Now, as Bloomberg reports, Sumwalt says that Musk abruptly ended the call, according to remarks that the safety official gave before the Society of Air Safety Investigators' Mid-Atlantic Regional Chapter dinner on Thursday.

"Best I remember, he hung up on us," Sumwalt said.

In a short email sent to Ars, Christopher T. O'Neil, the NTSB's chief of media relations, confirmed Bloomberg's description of the call.

"The account of the Chairman's remarks is accurate," O'Neil wrote.

Meanwhile, a Tesla spokesperson declined to comment.

Further Reading

On April 12, the NTSB formally removed Tesla as a party to the investigation into the crash.

"The NTSB took this action because Tesla violated the party agreement by releasing investigative information before it was vetted and confirmed by the NTSB," the agency wrote. "Such releases of incomplete information often lead to speculation and incorrect assumptions about the probable cause of a crash, which does a disservice to the investigative process and the traveling public."

For its part, Tesla said, in fact, that it withdrew before being booted out of the investigation.

A spokesperson even said that the NTSB was "more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety."

The NTSB expressed its frustration after Tesla published a March 30 blog post that essentially blamed the man behind the wheel, Walter Huang.

However, Huang's family told local television station ABC 7 that, before the fatal March 23 crash, Huang had taken his car into the Tesla dealership complaining about problems with Autopilot. But Tesla says it has no record of this.

Elon Musk did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment on Friday afternoon.

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

So tesla said that the driver turned autopilot off as the logs show & the ntsb wanted to treat it like an airplane crash that killed hundreds in case maybe some light startled the driver into turning it off or something.

Well if Tesla said so, then so it is, since there is no chance their diagnostics are bugged.

For its part, Tesla said, in fact, that it withdrew before being booted out of the investigation.

A spokesperson even said that the NTSB was "more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety."

Considering that Tesla leaked information in order to spin it for PR purposes, I don't think they have a leg to stand on there. It's almost as if they are accusing the NTSB of what Tesla are guilty of.

Besides which it's probable that the actual results of the investigation will be more nuanced than a binary "who is to blame".

So, from reading about this case, Mr Huang had complained to Tesla about how autopilot repeatedly malfunctioned at this point in the road, and yet he continued to use it there? If I had a car that say didn't handle a specific bump on a corner on my regular route to work, would it not be in my interest and also plain common sense to reduce my speed or slightly change my line so as to mitigate this safety issue?

I'm not a huge fan of 'autopilot', I think it's overhyped and underdeveloped but I've got to feel for Musk on this one.

For its part, Tesla said, in fact, that it withdrew before being booted out of the investigation.

A spokesperson even said that the NTSB was "more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety."

Considering that Tesla leaked information in order to spin it for PR purposes, I don't think they have a leg to stand on there. It's almost as if they are accusing the NTSB of what Tesla are guilty of.

Besides which it's probable that the actual results of the investigation will be more nuanced than a binary "who is to blame".

What do you mean "leaked" information? This information was "Tesla's" property and they release it on their "blog", not leaked it. The nuance of the words matter.

And I for one am happy that I have information within 2 days of the incident, not 1 year after it.

If NTSB was so concerned about "not releasing" information, then the media should be prevented from talking and criticizing the AP until the investigation is complete.

If NTSB says that Tesla's information was "lie" then Tesla is at fault. But I have no sympathy for bureaucrats who want to wait for a year.

So, from reading about this case, Mr Huang had complained to Tesla about how autopilot repeatedly malfunctioned at this point in the road, and yet he continued to use it there? If I had a car that say didn't handle a specific bump on a corner on my regular route to work, would it not be in my interest and also plain common sense to reduce my speed or slightly change my line so as to mitigate this safety issue?

I'm not a huge fan of 'autopilot', I think it's overhyped and underdeveloped but I've got to feel for Musk on this one.

I don’t know. It’s certainly weird that the driver continued to use the autopilot features in spite of these problems. That still doesn’t change the fact that the feature had these problems and managed to crash a car into a barrier. Regardless of liability for this particular accident, that sounds like something worth investigating to me.

It just struck me, what a world we live in! A car company is getting dirt for saying a car crash was the responsibility of the driver!

Imagine reading this story ten years ago!

I mean, 10 years ago the cars didn't literally steer themselves into barricades thinking it was a lane. Technology is moving really fast and that's great, but ignoring safety and pesky regulators is not going to help us get to the self driving utopia faster.

It just struck me, what a world we live in! A car company is getting dirt for saying a car crash was the responsibility of the driver!

Imagine reading this story ten years ago!

I mean, 10 years ago the cars didn't literally steer themselves into barricades thinking it was a lane. Technology is moving really fast and that's great, but ignoring safety and pesky regulators is not going to help us get to the self driving utopia faster.

Absolutely. Companies often forget that the purpose of regulation is to expand a market, not limit it. A good regulatory environment with good rules (such as I gather the NTSB provides, at least as seen from this side of the Atlantic) can take a technology from niche and dangerous to mainstream. See aviation, automotive, railways, even bikes. Once upon a time flying, driving, riding a train were dangerous, and now they're generally safe and very large industrial concerns thanks to regulations.

So, from reading about this case, Mr Huang had complained to Tesla about how autopilot repeatedly malfunctioned at this point in the road, and yet he continued to use it there? If I had a car that say didn't handle a specific bump on a corner on my regular route to work, would it not be in my interest and also plain common sense to reduce my speed or slightly change my line so as to mitigate this safety issue?

I'm not a huge fan of 'autopilot', I think it's overhyped and underdeveloped but I've got to feel for Musk on this one.

I don’t know. It’s certainly weird that the driver continued to use the autopilot features in spite of these problems. That still doesn’t change the fact that the feature had these problems and managed to crash a car into a barrier. Regardless of liability for this particular accident, that sounds like something worth investigating to me.

That's pretty much my take.

The lessons learned from all such accidents will be applicable across the industry. Even if the fault lies solely with the driver, there may still be lessons to apply to the technology.

Given that the technology will inevitably become more widely applied, there is also a need for public reassurance.

The only thing that I would add is that there does seem to be a yawning discrepancy between what the victim's family and Tesla have said. Either or both may be incorrect. It is also possible that if the victim did complain to Tesla, he received some degree of reassurance from them, sufficient for him to continue to use Autopilot.

So, from reading about this case, Mr Huang had complained to Tesla about how autopilot repeatedly malfunctioned at this point in the road, and yet he continued to use it there? If I had a car that say didn't handle a specific bump on a corner on my regular route to work, would it not be in my interest and also plain common sense to reduce my speed or slightly change my line so as to mitigate this safety issue?

I'm not a huge fan of 'autopilot', I think it's overhyped and underdeveloped but I've got to feel for Musk on this one.

It really has nothing to do with the bug in Tesla's autopilot that drove into large stationary objects on the highway, though I'm sure blaming the driver will make everyone feel better about autopilot, Tesla and it's developers. So let's keep rehashing how foolish their customer was throwing his life away trusting his Tesla car, why don't we?

Or shall we talk about a car company engaging in 'I broke up first' claims like a jilted teenager?With the safety agency in their largest market in the world?Smearing the regulators?

I mean, I agreed with your (irrelevant here) statement yet when you stack up Tesla's behavior (feuding with widows, smearing NTSB, smearing the media, breaking the rules, misleading statistics) it makes me wonder. They are acting awfully guilty and not very confident.

The NTSB expressed its frustration after Telsa published a March 30 blog post that essentially blamed the man behind the wheel, Walter Huang.

There is indeed a typo in the article, why is he getting downvoted?

Can't speak for the downvoters, but my brain autocorrected it to Tesla so I didn't notice the typo until I read your comment. (I initially thought that perhaps it was an error where names were switched that was already corrected.)

Musk is creating a lot of unnecessary drama lately. NTSB original announcement didn't contain any details and stated that it probed the crash due to battery fire. It was Tesla blog that broke the news about AP being active during crash and then Musk complained about journalists acutally writing about AP. What did he expect? That people will not be interested in it and everyone will praise AP, blame driver and move on? Then the earnings drama. Tesla actually beat the expectations, but it was all overshadowed by Musk behaviour.

And to all the commenters squabbling over if he was a Trump appointee, no he was not. LMGTFY

Quote:

He was sworn in as the 37th member of the National Transportation Safety Board in August 2006, whereupon President George W. Bush designated him as vice chairman of the board for a two-year term. In November 2011, President Barack Obama reappointed Sumwalt to an additional five-year term. In March 2017, President Donald Trump reappointed Sumwalt to a five-year term expiring on December 16, 2021 and designated him as Vice Chairman for a term of two years. In August 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed Sumwalt as the NTSB's next chairman. He succeeded Christopher A. Hart in this role.

I can’t see how this will end well for Tesla. This kind of behavior (not working with your regulators) will just invite closer scrutiny.

Musk’s little act is wearing thin. Ok, cool, you’re dedicated Elon, you sleep in the factory on a narrow sofa. But you’re worth like $20B, I’m pretty sure you could afford to have a bed put in so you get some decent sleep!

So, from reading about this case, Mr Huang had complained to Tesla about how autopilot repeatedly malfunctioned at this point in the road, and yet he continued to use it there? If I had a car that say didn't handle a specific bump on a corner on my regular route to work, would it not be in my interest and also plain common sense to reduce my speed or slightly change my line so as to mitigate this safety issue?

I'm not a huge fan of 'autopilot', I think it's overhyped and underdeveloped but I've got to feel for Musk on this one.

It really has nothing to do with the bug in Tesla's autopilot that drove into large stationary objects on the highway, though I'm sure blaming the driver will make everyone feel better about autopilot, Tesla and it's developers. So let's keep rehashing how foolish their customer was throwing his life away trusting his Tesla car, why don't we?

Or shall we talk about a car company engaging in 'I broke up first' claims like a jilted teenager?With the safety agency in their largest market in the world?Smearing the regulators?

I mean, I agreed with your (irrelevant here) statement yet when you stack up Tesla's behavior (feuding with widows, smearing NTSB, smearing the media, breaking the rules, misleading statistics) it makes me wonder. They are acting awfully guilty and not very confident.

Good for him. The NTSB was in the wrong for releasing that Autopilot was engaged, thus insinuating that Autopilot was somehow at fault. Musk came back and wrecked them for this. Autopilot is not level 5 autonomy. The driver is supposed to maintain control. He didn't, and the evidence from the telemetry clearly showed it wasn't through any lack of opportunity. NTSB was full of shit to insinuate any differently.

If the NTSB didn't want information released before the final conclusion, they should have followed that themselves instead of releasing false speculation that needed to be addressed.

Yea shame on them for investigating a drivers aid leading to a death. It's not level 5 autonomy so they need to just get out of the way. Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette! (/s if not obvious)

A drivers aid didn't function, and let to a death. This is no different than investigating a blind spot detector or a conventional cruise control system, something the NTSB does all the time. That's literally their job. Given Tesla's tendency to down play these things, making a statement was the right thing to do. Tesla has literally made false statements on behalf of the sister agency, NHTSA at least twice (the mythical 5.4 crash rating, autopilot safety rates) Sometimes it's good to set the record straight...

Good for him. The NTSB was in the wrong for releasing that Autopilot was engaged, thus insinuating that Autopilot was somehow at fault. Musk came back and wrecked them for this. Autopilot is not level 5 autonomy. The driver is supposed to maintain control. He didn't, and the evidence from the telemetry clearly showed it wasn't through any lack of opportunity. NTSB was full of shit to insinuate any differently.

If the NTSB didn't want information released before the final conclusion, they should have followed that themselves instead of releasing false speculation that needed to be addressed.

Yea shame on them for investigating a drivers aid leading to a death. It's not level 5 autonomy so they need to just get out of the way. Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette! (/s if not obvious)

A drivers aid didn't function, and let to a death. This is no different than investigating a blind spot detector or a conventional cruise control system, something the NTSB does all the time. That's literally their job.

Not their job to recklessly speculate, especially throwing shade on devices that aren't designed to replace the driver. They basically blamed the blinker for not turning the car.

It's not level 5 autonomy. Guess what that means? It's going to hit things on its own. What would we call it if it DIDN'T hit things on its own? Level 5 autonomy. Do you see that it's not level 5 autonomy, and that treating it as though it's level 5 autonomy is Fox News tier commentary?

The driver is responsible for control. If the Autopilot didn't overpower him to steer into that obstacle, it's not at fault.

If a company shipped a defective blinker, they'd investigate that if it lead to a crash too. Why do you seem to think they'd only investigate level 5 autonomy deaths?